Norwegian Terrorist Anders Breivik Reveals Climate Denial Influences

Norwegian Terrorist Anders Breivik Reveals Climate Denial Influences

TO followers of the climate change policy debate, the extreme conspiratorial rhetoric is all too familiar:

Climate change is a hoax. Environmentalists are just communists in disguise. The United Nations is using efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a smokescreen for installing a world government. Greenies are actually reds. Eco fascists want your freedom.

Such rhetoric is daily bread for many neo-conservative commentators, some climate change deniers and even the occasional elected representative. The language is divisive, often becomes abusive and – regrettably – has become a feature of the manufactured debate over the risk posed by human-caused climate change.

The manifesto of Norwegian terrorist and Christian fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik, currently facing trial for the massacre of 76 people, shows what can happen when the unhinged take the language of the far-right to its ultimate ends.

In the 1500-word document, published online under his Anglicised name Andrew Berwick before the brutal bombing and shootings in Norway, Breivik reveals a hatred for Islam and socialism.

But the manifesto also echoes the beliefs of many climate change deniers and cites the work of Lord Christopher Monckton, Alex Jones and Steve McIntyre.

The document reveals how sceptic commentators had convinced him that the so-called “climategate” hacking of emails and data disproved human-cased climate change.

Writing about the unauthorised release of emails from researchers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November 2009, Breivik says:

The information revealed how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change.

Breivik then provides seven URL links to the PrisonPlanet website of conservative radio host and climate change denier Alex Jones. Some of these links were re-posts of blogs written by Steve McIntyre.

Also in the manifesto, Breivik lists “environmentalist organisations” as being “smoke screens” for “cultural Marxists”. He also includes in this bracket, groups which advocate for animal rights, human rights, feminism and anti-racism.

In a section of his manifesto entitled “Green is the new Red - Stop Enviro-Communism!”, Breivik writes of the “global warming scam”:

You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist ―solutions to a problem that never actually existed.

One section of Breivik’s manifesto points readers to a video clip of Lord Christopher Monckton, the climate change sceptic who is nearing the end of an Australian tour supported by mining magnate Gina Rinehart, The Climate Sceptics political party and part-funded by the Association for Mining and Exploration Companies. He is scheduled to tour New Zealand in August.

In the video, which is an excerpt of Lord Monckton’s October 2009 speech to Bethel University in St Thomas, Minnesota, Monckton states that attempts to agree a binding agreement to cut global emissions were a UN plot to install a world government. Lord Monckton told the audience:

A world government is going to be created. The transfer of wealth from the countries of the west to third-world countries in satisfaction of what’s called coyly a climate debt because we have been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we have been screwing up the climate – we haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.

Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. In the next few weeks, unless you stop it (the signing of the Copenhagen accord), your president will sign your freedom, democracy and prosperity away forever. It’s here in your great nation. It is here that perhaps at this 11th hour at the 59th minute at the 59th second you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty.

Echoing the paranoia that environmentalists are communists, UK-based Daily Telegraph columnist James Delingpole, a climate sceptic, is currently promoting his book Watermelons – The Environment Movement’s True Colours – in which he argues environmentalists are “green on the outside, red on the inside”.

When former Fox News pundit Glenn Beck heard of the Norwegian tragedy, he compared the young Norwegians killed by Breivik to “the Hitler youth”. Lord Monckton also once described a group of climate change campaigners as “the Hitler youth”.

All public commentators should understand clearly that readers and listeners can hang on their words. Their views and beliefs can accumulate and hang heavy in the psyche but very few followers would ever consider violence. No doubt the commentators themselves would recoil at any such thought.

But unfortunately for those now dead and scarred in the Norwegian terror attack, the weight of conspiracy became too much to bare for Anders Breivik.

“Of course the Climate Alarmists will now compare anyone who disagrees with them to mass murderers”

Ah, a strawman argument. Read the post again and do it honestly this time.

“They very casually compare us to Holocaust deniers, as a matter of routine. This comes as no surprise.”

Deniers of all stripes are comparable. Their M.O is always the same.
Holocaust deniers are just one group but their thinking is not unique.
There are also vaccine deniers.HIV deniers.
Moon landing deniers.
And climate deniers.
The methodolody is the same. If you don’t want to be a denier then don’t whine about it. Change your methodology so that you are clearly distinct and separate from the “real deniers” out there.
One thing you could do is not complain the people keep comparing you to Holocaust deniers.
That’s…um…an argument that deniers use. Fail.

“One expects scientific discourse to be focused dispassionately on substantive issues. Yet doctors, scientists, and others who question whether human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) have been called the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers
(..)
Op-ed pieces and non-technical articles continue to reiterate that it is beyond reasonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS, but the restrained language of the Durban Declaration has been replaced by strident denunciations: Public dissent from HIV = AIDS is said to be on a moral par with Holocaust denial.
(…)
Readers of this essay are invited to sample items on that website and to note the lack of substantive discussion and the preponderance of attacks on so-called “HIVdenialists.”

There is no comparison in the entire article. All it does is point out, quite accurately, how dangerous Conspiracy Theories can be, to some.

Every single issue Breivik addressed in his manifesto regarding Global Warming is false. Ever single one of them! Had he actually done some real research (ie, visited desmogblog.com or skepticalscience.com, he would have found out how unreliable his sources (prisonplanet, mostly) are.

The “Global Warming is a Marxist Plan” is just a small part of his delusions as set forth in his manifest. Yet it has something in common with all the other topics he raises, namely that he takes for granted whatever extreme right-wing loonies write or say.

That is the issue Graham raises. That repeating lies, distortions and falsehoods has consequences, be it some Republicans demanding the UN panel on Climate Change to be defunded or a Norwegian right-wing terrorist believing it’s all part of a global Marxists conspiracy.

You’d have a valid point if neither “Big Oil”, Koch Industries, etc., etc. would stand to lose lots of money should AGW reduction policies be implemented.

But they do and one has to be extremely naive not to see that.

It’s a proven fact that “big oil” and related have sponsored and still do sponsor all kinds of so-called ‘skeptics’ (scientists and an alarming number of none scientists), not to disprove AGW but to make people believe that the science is not settled.

But don’t take my word for it: google it. Find out for yourself. If you do not want to believe in alleged Conspiracy Theories from the Left, fine, but then at least don’t take those same theories from the Right for granted as this idiot in Norway did.

Conspiracies do happen.
That’s not the same as “conspiracy theories”.
People do get together in secret to commit crimes or pervert the course of justice or come up with a means to defraud the public.
It does happen.
They do it in secret so as to reduce the risk of detection.

When those people slip up, they hopefully go to jail or are forced to pay massive fines in court.
Conspiracies are part of the reality-based community.
They can be uncovered by investigative reporting, following the funding of “advocacy front groups”, the publishing of memos from meetings and whistle blowers.
It’s evidence-based. No hearsay allowed. Either there are tax records or there are not. Either someone did commit a crime or do something unethical or they did not. There must be evidence to support this. Evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

Conspiracy theories, however, are not the same thing.
Conspiracy theories are based on anomoly hunting, speculation and paranoia. They are a comfort to those that want quick, easy answers to the troubles of the world. Denialists flock to conspiracy theory thinking as a sop to help justify their denial.
Conspiracy theories alwasy expand.
Conspiracy theories are always unfalisifiable.
Conspiracy theories explain everything.

However, the Marshall Institute (and their clones) really does exist. It’s not a fantasy. Their funding really does come from the usual suspects and their tactics are the same tactics that those self-same people used to decieve the public about the safety of tobacco.
It’s all documented:
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

you would have a valid point, however, the only companies that will be able to trade in the carbon taxes and get away with murder, like they are right now, as well as consolidating wealth, is the fact that big oil are the only ones that will be able to trade, pay and deal with the carbon taxes. many regular people such as you and i will not be able to handle the burden as we are already dealing with so much only to live in this wretched world. ppl better wake up and get together, instead of fighting each other before it’s too late.

Europe is all LEFT. “Right” means Nationalist Socialist on the Left, which doesn’t actually exist in the USA. The Left wants to conceal that the “Socialist Right” isn’t actually Socialist, and to dishonestly project the “Nationalist” to the Conservative American, of which there is no equivalent in Europe. The European “Conservative” is Left also, not at all equivalent to the American Conservative. We obviously need a new discipline in the use of language, the MSM continues to try to mush it all up to support their agenda.

You mean unlike Watts’s assertion that CRU and UEA are even more untrustworthy because they hired a PR guy to help deal with the CLimategate manufactroversy, but it turns out that the guy was allegedly involved with the News International phonehackings?

Rob, what is a little over the top is to claim Graham is branding AGW skeptics as mass murderers. That isn’t what he said. Let’s ignore your defensive assumptions for a moment and look at the facts. Let’s look at what Anders Beivik actually said. He claimed that scientists conspired to falsify data in order to prop up the premise of climate change. This belief, in addition to his racism and paranoid hatred toward communists or socialists were what motivated him to commit such violence, not corn flakes.

What insults? And what is there to rebut? Breivik is a right wing extremist, and likely more than a little unbalanced. He apparently had a paragraph on global warming in his 1500 page diatribe against the world. So what?

The ELF group that I mentioned earlier are left wing nuts and arsonists. Should we blame the enviromental movement for their actions or brand enviromentalists as arsonists?

Rob, I was referring to the insults coming from Anonymous. Regarding Breivik, yes he shares the beliefs of many denialists that climate change is a vast conspiracy. It’s good that you can admit this. But your reference to the ELF group is a fallacy, or more accurately, a false analogy. Graham is not discussing ELF, he is talking about Breivik and how similar his beliefs are to to climate change denialists.

the point is to show that stirring up people with conspiracy theories, fear and hate will push violent people over the brink. something similar happened when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, or when Mark Stroman went on his killing spree. if you propagate fear and hate you will have contributed to creating a climate in which horrible deeds like these become more likely. that is not to say you should be held accountable for it, but that it would be wise, and Christian, to instead spread a message of peace and understanding. there will always be crazy people that do evil things, but less so the less they find themselves supported by “normal” people.

also, you might remember when Marc Morano did with James Jay Lee, what you falsely allege Readfearn is doing now: trying to disgrace a whole group on the deeds of some crazy person.

The difference is, they were using black comedy to convey a message. The right winger brevik targeted political opponents for real.

Makes you wonder what other right wingers out there are just completely conned like Brevik & are ready to kill for their deluded beliefs. Brevik like many right wingers probably tuned into rabid right wing shock jocks that pervade western culture, spewing messages of ignorance,hate, bigotry & misinformation.

Many people like to listen to them & all too willing admit they like them…..they like being lied to & hyped into misguided action.

“Evidently someone has no idea what the term, “strawman argument” means. Yet that doesn’t seem to stop him from incorrectly employing the term in EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT.’

Irony.
I’ve made muliple comments. Yet, and yet, I have not use the term in every single comment (incorrectly or otherwise).
You just created another strawman. Look up the term.
Let me help you with that:

Who would have guessed? Right wingers & denialism. The easily duped go hand in hand.

On top of that he was a christian fundamentalist. Conned every which way he moved. He was living in a snow dome, completely unaware of the reality of the outside world. His idols having complete control of his rational & logical senses.

In case “Anonomous” doesn’t get what that is.. Tu quoque: Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”

In case “Anonymous” doesn’t know what that is.. Tu quoque: Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”

It’s also a wildly false analogy.. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and yes, on the right Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini were leaders of their respective countries. And in that capacity they were in a position to do a great deal of harm. An analogy to that would be the deaths of half a million Iraquis due to the imperialist policies of one George W. Bush. But these situations are not the same as a right wing terrorist indiscriminately killing men women and children because - Partially: He believed that climate change was a massive conspiracy.

The only idiot on this thread is the one who refuses to address the topic, and instead revels in fallacies.. You haven’t refuted any of Grahams points, or added anything of any real substance to the discussion. All you do is make ad hominem attacks and false analogies.

Now, let’s develop some perspective on this article. Anders Breivik claimed that climate scientists conspired to falsify data in order to prop up the premise of climate change. As a denialist, do you agree with Anders Breivik?

One should only ‘feel’ “slurred” if one ‘feels’ associated, affiliated or similar…
I think its terrible to paint everyone on the right with the same brush.. However.. there is that nagging issue regarding the canvas…

There is a slight error in this article. Bethel University is not in St. Thomas, MN. Bethel and St. Thomas are both Universities in St. Paul, MN. Bethel is a conservative fundamentalist Christian University at which “Lord” Monckton gave a speech denouncing John Abraham, who is a professor at the University of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is a Catholic University that “Lord” Monckton referred to as a “half-assed Bible college.”

pathetic article and as usual a pathetic response by phil where once again he draws the wrong conclusion because of a faulty cause and effect analysis. hey, maybe thats why he is wrong on climate change. he doesnt understand cause and effect. pathetic none the less.

Too calm the rhetoric, I recommend this site immediately suspend it’s use of the heavily charged term “denier”. I’m sure, in the interests of peaceful discussion that this adjustment will be happily made so as not to contribute to the stirring up of the crazies.

“I recommend this site immediately suspend it’s use of the heavily charged term “denier”.”

It’s not a “heavily charged” term. It’s a real word to describe a real type of person doing something very specific. However, nobody likes being called it for the same reason people don’t like being called a thief or a liar.

Yet thieves do exist. Theft doesn’t happen by magic.
Liars do exist. Lies abound and they get out there because of people telling lies.
Deniers do exist. They influence your community. They put the health and safety of children at risk by denying the efficacy of vaccines. If you ever have baby in a hospital, the odd of that child dying of pertussis or measles or chicken pox are higher thanks to deniers.
Holocaust deniers do exist. They cause incredible pain and suffering by denying history.
Tobacco-cancer deniers exist. That doesn’t stop them from having their tongues surgically removed or having to carry around an oxygen bottle.
Deniers pit themselves against reality.
Reality doesn’t care. Reality will bury them every time.
The trouble is that deniers can harm (via action or inaction) those around them.
Don’t mince words. Call a spade a spade.

“They put the health and safety of children at risk by denying the efficacy of vaccines. If you ever have baby in a hospital, the odd of that child dying of pertussis or measles or chicken pox are higher thanks to deniers.
”

Another one of my pet hates. The anti vaccine mob. Again, all about money & started by the chiro’s & homeopaths ( to get more money for themselves), who without a shred of scientific evidence convince people not to vaccinate their kids. Vaccines that may have had adverse effects on a few, but saved 100’s of millions.

Don’t get me wrong, I support eastern medicine & have used it many times, but to misrepresent the science & evidence to attract more of the publics money is criminal. Like the fossil fuel companies misinformation campaign against climate science.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

By the 1950s, smoking's cause of disease had risen to strong scientific consensus, but Big Tobacco needed an illusion of scientific controversy to keep the public in doubt. As seen in the new film Merchants of Doubt, they developed superb marketing tactics copied by others, including the fossil fuel industry and allies.

The scientific consensus on human causation of climate change is just as strong as that on smoking, so the same tactics are used against it, plus Internet-amplified harassment of...